4 ms·

As far as I can tell the conclusions we're going to have to draw are: 1) We need to keep using all strategies - including masking, social distancing, and targe

As far as I can tell the conclusions we're going to have to draw are: 1) We need to keep using all strategies - including masking, social distancing, and targeted lockdowns - to reduce large scale spread of the virus. If we don't, we're going to be playing "new variant whack-a-mole" until the end of time. 2) Vaccination is critical to make the above task easier but it's not enough it itself. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it reduces chance of passing it on and the severity of the cases, but it's clearly not enough by itself (see Israel, although the remaining unvaccinated population is a big factor anywhere in passing COVID on). We're also going to have to start kicking the asses of the pointlessly vaccine-skeptical through harsh restrictions and denial of things. In Australia, once we have universal access to the vaccine, I would be quite keen to see vaccine refusers not treated for free if they do get COVID - I'd support a "HECS"-like scheme for people who get avoidable diseases like this, including the government getting to sell your house when you die to recoup costs. 3) There's a pile of stuff we don't know about the long-term effects of COVID-19 and some ominous indications that it's Really Not Good. I don't want to get into a case-by-case with a bunch of self-appointed Internet Experts about this but there's a lot of medical opinion out there that long COVID is real and serious (particularly on the neurological side). We don't know how bad it really is because no-one has had COVID for more than 2 years. Having participated in the care of multiple relatives over the years with dementia, one thing that chills me is the prospect that COVID will lead to even a slight uptick in the chance of getting Lewy body dementia or Parkinson's. That's a fucking public health tsunami. We also don't know much about the effects of lockdown, etc. but the picture seems to be complex and indecisive. All the anti-lockdown people going on about suicides and depression apparently think the only source of suicide and depression in a massive pandemic where people are losing folks dear to them and are terrified of getting a debilitating disease is because they are locked down. As usual, it's the typical overreach of the Internet Expert. Normal is a very long way off. The implications of COVID being 'endemic' certainly aren't what most people casually tossing the word around think they are, and magical thinking about 'living with the virus' isn't going to make long COVID go away.

nradov 5y ago
It's too late to prevent large-scale spread of the virus. That already happened and it's now endemic worldwide. We don't have a time machine. You obviously can't expect most people to continue tolerating masking, social distancing, and lockdowns indefinitely with no clear, achievable exit criteria. That would be absurd and people in free societies won't comply regardless of the potential consequences. You can complain that they're being irresponsible and putting others at risk but that won't change the reality. At some point we'll have to accept the risk and move forward with normal life. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths.
- glangdale 5y ago
  That's a straw-man. "Indefinitely with no clear, achievable exit criteria" isn't what I said. A lot of countries have done masking as a default during flu season, without the massive chorus of whining from dipshits about it. Social distancing and lockdowns are obviously a bigger deal but this stuff could be targeted and less extreme than we've had to, pre-vaccine. The vaccine clearly reduces the severity of the spread even if it doesn't eliminate the possibility. The word "endemic" is doing a lot of work in these kind of posts. It's quite compatible with absolutely ghastly public health outcomes, and frankly we don't know how bad it's going to get. You can spout cliches about "free societies" and "accepting the risk" and "moving forward with normal life" until you're blue in the face (maybe literally?) but maybe the normal life we're talking about down that path involves a order-of-magnitude increase in Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia. I hope y'all enjoy changing diapers.
josephcsible 5y ago
> 1) We need to keep using all strategies - including masking, social distancing, and targeted lockdowns - to reduce large scale spread of the virus. If we don't, we're going to be playing "new variant whack-a-mole" until the end of time. How long do you think we need to keep using all strategies for? We've been doing that for almost a year and a half now, with no end in sight, despite having a vaccine available to everyone so quickly.
- glangdale 5y ago
  "We've been doing that for almost a year and a half" - have we? A lot of jurisdictions have done lockdown light, if anything. A few fitful weeks of half-measures, then declare that "lockdowns don't work" seems like the most common measure. Right now we're suffering from the fact that the measures in Australia had stupid holes in them - we could be delta-free if the geniuses behind our quarantine policy hadn't had unmasked, unvaccinated limo drivers driving around air crew from other countries.
shadowprofile76 5y ago
And I suppose you yourself are not at all a self appoiunted internet expert with your broad and highly charged range of opinions without a single clear cut reference backing any of them up? Worth noting as well is that you're trying to assert a negative without evidence-based substance as part of your particularly alarmist discourse. In effect: We don't know that COVID doesn't cause X list of aweful long term things I just mentioned, though no evidence so far indicates that it does, we should just assume it does however in order to push for a bunch of harsh and punitive measures against those with any skeptical take.
- glangdale 5y ago
  Actually, a good deal of evidence suggests it might. There have been 3 or 4 recent well-publicized studies suggesting neurological effects of COVID coming at various angles (imaging from Biobank, tests of various mental tasks on people who have or haven't had COVID, etc). The science is far from settled - sample sizes are small, effects are unclear, etc. This is fairly understandable as it's hard to tease apart correlation and causation, etc. unless you have before and after data (the Biobank study did, but the sample size is quite small). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... (a couple items I've seen recently) The Parkinson's connection is explained here, although the tone, quite rightly, is very much "wait and see": https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-there-a-link-between-covid-19-and-parkinsons-disease#Closely-following-further-developments https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-there-a-link-be... UK science twitter is full of alarmed neurologists and epidemiologists yelling about this sort of thing. I don't work in the area, so maybe they're a bunch of clueless self appoiunted (sic) internet experts too. The idea that COVID does nasty stuff to the brain and might cause a small uptick in Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia also came from similar sources... Here's the thing. There seem to be endless folks who, armed with a few slogans about "things being endemic" and a mock-realist take on things ("look at me, I'm the smart one who knows we have to live with this") are way more sure of themselves than actual doctors and scientists who study COVID patients and worry about long-term effects. I remember the Internet being full of self-appointed "just a flu" experts when COVID just got started. I'd say that the prevailing tone among people who actually study this stuff is... caution. I agree. I'm not sure. You're the person who is apparently so full of certainty that we can just steam past all these worried experts (again).

nradov 5y ago

It's too late to prevent large-scale spread of the virus. That already happened and it's now endemic worldwide. We don't have a time machine. You obviously can't expect most people to continue tolerating masking, social distancing, and lockdowns indefinitely with no clear, achievable exit criteria. That would be absurd and people in free societies won't comply regardless of the potential consequences. You can complain that they're being irresponsible and putting others at risk but that won't change the reality. At some point we'll have to accept the risk and move forward with normal life. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths.

glangdale 5y ago
That's a straw-man. "Indefinitely with no clear, achievable exit criteria" isn't what I said. A lot of countries have done masking as a default during flu season, without the massive chorus of whining from dipshits about it. Social distancing and lockdowns are obviously a bigger deal but this stuff could be targeted and less extreme than we've had to, pre-vaccine. The vaccine clearly reduces the severity of the spread even if it doesn't eliminate the possibility. The word "endemic" is doing a lot of work in these kind of posts. It's quite compatible with absolutely ghastly public health outcomes, and frankly we don't know how bad it's going to get. You can spout cliches about "free societies" and "accepting the risk" and "moving forward with normal life" until you're blue in the face (maybe literally?) but maybe the normal life we're talking about down that path involves a order-of-magnitude increase in Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia. I hope y'all enjoy changing diapers.

josephcsible 5y ago

> 1) We need to keep using all strategies - including masking, social distancing, and targeted lockdowns - to reduce large scale spread of the virus. If we don't, we're going to be playing "new variant whack-a-mole" until the end of time. How long do you think we need to keep using all strategies for? We've been doing that for almost a year and a half now, with no end in sight, despite having a vaccine available to everyone so quickly.

glangdale 5y ago
"We've been doing that for almost a year and a half" - have we? A lot of jurisdictions have done lockdown light, if anything. A few fitful weeks of half-measures, then declare that "lockdowns don't work" seems like the most common measure. Right now we're suffering from the fact that the measures in Australia had stupid holes in them - we could be delta-free if the geniuses behind our quarantine policy hadn't had unmasked, unvaccinated limo drivers driving around air crew from other countries.

shadowprofile76 5y ago

And I suppose you yourself are not at all a self appoiunted internet expert with your broad and highly charged range of opinions without a single clear cut reference backing any of them up? Worth noting as well is that you're trying to assert a negative without evidence-based substance as part of your particularly alarmist discourse. In effect: We don't know that COVID doesn't cause X list of aweful long term things I just mentioned, though no evidence so far indicates that it does, we should just assume it does however in order to push for a bunch of harsh and punitive measures against those with any skeptical take.

glangdale 5y ago
Actually, a good deal of evidence suggests it might. There have been 3 or 4 recent well-publicized studies suggesting neurological effects of COVID coming at various angles (imaging from Biobank, tests of various mental tasks on people who have or haven't had COVID, etc). The science is far from settled - sample sizes are small, effects are unclear, etc. This is fairly understandable as it's hard to tease apart correlation and causation, etc. unless you have before and after data (the Biobank study did, but the sample size is quite small). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... (a couple items I've seen recently) The Parkinson's connection is explained here, although the tone, quite rightly, is very much "wait and see": https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-there-a-link-between-covid-19-and-parkinsons-disease#Closely-following-further-developments https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-there-a-link-be... UK science twitter is full of alarmed neurologists and epidemiologists yelling about this sort of thing. I don't work in the area, so maybe they're a bunch of clueless self appoiunted (sic) internet experts too. The idea that COVID does nasty stuff to the brain and might cause a small uptick in Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia also came from similar sources... Here's the thing. There seem to be endless folks who, armed with a few slogans about "things being endemic" and a mock-realist take on things ("look at me, I'm the smart one who knows we have to live with this") are way more sure of themselves than actual doctors and scientists who study COVID patients and worry about long-term effects. I remember the Internet being full of self-appointed "just a flu" experts when COVID just got started. I'd say that the prevailing tone among people who actually study this stuff is... caution. I agree. I'm not sure. You're the person who is apparently so full of certainty that we can just steam past all these worried experts (again).